Appeal No. 1998-1661
Application No. 08/409,244
further define what a particular structure does and the
language is not indefinite or ambiguous in any way, we find
nothing wrong, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, with the use of such functional language.
Finally, the examiner contends that it is not clear, in
lines 6 and 7 of claim 9 and in lines 10 and 11 of claim 11
“that passing the MO beam through the Yb-doped crystal gain
medium has any effect whatsoever on the Yb-doped crystal gain
medium” [page 3-final rejection]. Any “effect” need not be
spelled out in the claim. The invention claimed is a MOPA
laser which passes a MO beam through a Yb-doped crystal gain
medium. While the recitation may be a bit broader than the
examiner would like, the way to attack breadth is to cite a
prior art reference which evidences the broad scope of the
claim. A broad claim is not necessarily an indefinite claim.
We find nothing indefinite, within the meaning of the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, in the instant claims.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007